I like Barack Obama. I’m not going to vote for him. But I like him. He comes off as a nice guy on television, which these days is almost as important as what issues you support, and he is a smart man. Obama graduated from Harvard Law, and was an editor for the Harvard Law Review. Law school alone is rough, but taking on a large extracurricular task, like the law review, while you’re still taking classes is extraordinary. In a country that sometimes feel like there is an intellectual black hole that opens up when people turn on VH1, an intelligent leader is critical. But I have some concerns about Senator Obama. And I’m going to get this right out of the way at the start, I couldn’t care less about the color of his skin. It’s the 21st century, who cares what color you are? I’m more concerned with his lack of federal government experience, his voting record and the media making anyone attacking Obama to be a racist monster who eats unattended babies in Wal-mart parking lots.

Anyone remember Howard “I have a scream” Dean? He was intelligent, liberal, and the media loved him. But America didn’t. I would have supported Dean over Kerry any day of the week, but the reality was that people were concerned about his ultra-liberal policies, and some of his supporters’ gestapo-like tactics. But you never really heard about some of his crazy supporters or liberal positions from the media. And don’t say Fox News mentioned it because no one takes Fox News seriously. People watch Fox News more for the entertainment value and their hilariously bad segments and captions. The media loves a liberal candidate, and they’ll shove that candidate down everyone’s throat because that’s the guy they like. And no, this isn’t one of those “liberal media” conspiracy theories either. There is no liberal media (because the liberal journalists are paid by conservative corporations who can control the liberal journalist’s content), it just happens that many journalists look at the world very differently then the average person because of their training and way of life.

The media’s mania-like support of candidates like Obama is well-intentioned. They think he will help lead the country in a better direction then the one we’re in now, and we all know, conservative or liberal, that we need that change. But don’t let the hype fool you either. All because the media supports a candidate of either party doesn’t mean that candidate will win or best represent you. Dean fizzled out, Hillary will fizzle out as well, and Obama might too.

Might fizzle out? Let’s pretend the media doesn’t have a raging boner for Obama. He’s young, he’s bright, but where is his federal government experience? I’m not going to sell you on another candidate here, I just want you to look at things past what the media says. He had no competition in his U.S. Senate Race. I like Alan Keys, I’ve met him, but he was thrown into the race at the last minute out of pure desperation by the republicans. He wasn’t even from Illinois, but the Republicans had nobody else to run against Obama. So Obama, after possibly getting ahead in the primaries because the democratic frontrunner was caught up in domestic abuse allegations, had no one to stand in his way for the Senate seat. Getting into the Senate is an impressive and wonderful feat. I don’t want to take away from that, but I want to point out that when you’re running for president, you’re going to face fierce competition. It wasn’t a cakewalk, but Obama didn’t exactly have a rough road ahead of him in his first Senate campaign. We can only assume that he will campaign hard, and that he will try his best, but if the media wasn’t behind Obama as his cheering section, would his campaign be considered when compared to more experienced contenders?

Luckily for Obama, he wasn’t around to vote on going to war in Iraq, but in his very short time as a senator, he has voted to the left on almost everything. Our country isn’t as polarized as you might think. The media just came up with the red state-blue state divide to explain why Al Gore “lost” the 2000 election. Many, many blue states such as New York are very conservative, and many red states have been considered liberal in the past. That being said, we’ve all allowed ourselves to be sold on this political divide for whatever reason, and politicians have fed into this, raising a serious issue about Obama’s time in the senate. In a polarized climate, wouldn’t Americans need someone who can vote on the issue without voting on it from a liberal or conservative perspective? Regular Americans don’t see the world as conservative or liberal, we just want what’s best for our family and friends. Don’t you think we need someone who is going to find middle ground as opposed to just voting with the party? I do. But let me also say, this problem isn’t limited to just Obama. All of the candidates for president will need to build a bridge, and the experience of building those bridges will be crucial.

I want to support Barrack Obama, but I don’t feel like his time is now. Maybe he hasn’t had a chance to reach across party lines in his short time in the Senate? Maybe he will face stiff competition in his re-election bid? How will he respond? Can he beat a strong challenger? Will he vote with republicans if it represents the best interests of the country? The media is not doing him any favors. They want to push him because they think, not you, that he will be a great choice for this country, but what works best for journalists might not work best for the rest of us. And if you don’t think experience is important in determining the worth of a candidate, consider this: George W. Bush was just a governor before he was elected president. And unlike Ronald Reagan and several other successful governor-turn-presidents, his only political track record was a failed campaign for the House and owning the Texas Rangers. I say, Obama in 2012, experience in 2008.